Cyberactivism: A generational comparison of digital activism
-
Upload
ashley-hennefer -
Category
Documents
-
view
139 -
download
4
description
Transcript of Cyberactivism: A generational comparison of digital activism
University of Nevada, Reno
Cyberactivism: A generational comparison of digital activism
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Literacy Studies
by
Ashley Noel Hennefer
Dr. Dianna Townsend/Thesis Advisor
December, 2013
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 2
We recommend that the thesis
prepared under our supervision by
Ashley Noel Hennefer
entitled
Cyberactivism: A generational comparison of digital activism
be accepted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts in Literacy Studies
Dr. Dianna Townsend, Advisor
Dr. Julie Pennington, Committee Member
Dr. Stephen Rock, Committee Member
Marsha H. Read, Ph. D., Dean, Graduate School
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 3
Abstract
Since the events of the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street took place largely through the Web
using social networking and mobile devices, the concept of “cyberactivism” has become a
popular topic of discussion and criticism within the media and academia. Cyberactivism, also
referred to as web-based or digital activism, focuses on the use of technology to participate in
political activism. Within cyberactivist scholarship, there is a focus on “digital natives”—youth
who have grown up surrounded by and immersed in technology—and how they use technology
for political means. Subsequently, those who used technology later in life are referred to as
“digital immigrants.” In this study (n = 305), participants were surveyed on their digital activist
habits. The data allowed for an examination of the specific outlets of cyberactivism and the
current political and technological climates that support that behavior. The findings, for which a
Chi square statistical analysis was used, compare habits between age groups,
revealing generational differences in the use of web-based tools. In particular, digital natives
are more likely to use the internet to engage in political discussion and activity, but they do so
passively. Digital immigrants, however, see the web in more of a supporting role for their
activism, as they use web-based tools to emphasize the use of in-person action and discussion.
Areas of future research may focus on the implications of these patterns of cyberactivist
behavior for digital natives and digital immigrants, and how these habits will impact the future
of political activism.
Keywords: Cyberactivism, digital literacy, digital activism, activist literacy.
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 4
Acknowledgements
And when it’s all a blur, you are the hard line / in the disorder, you are the peace sign. – Lights
I would like to thank several people for their help and support during this project. First
and foremost, I am eternally grateful for my boyfriend, Andrew Warren, for his unwavering
support throughout my graduate studies. I am thankful for my parents, Paula and Wayne, who
instilled a value for education in me at a young age and encouraged me to pursue my academic
goals. My brother, Steven, for his humor and love (and lots of Starbucks coffee) when I needed
it most. My cat, Sofie, whose warm presence and company was always appreciated during the
many late nights. The many friends I collaborated with during the very early stages of Occupy
Wall Street, whose passion for a better future inspired me to conduct this research.
Researchers Dr. Jane McGonigal, Dr. James Gee and Marc Prensky, whose research transformed
the way I view technology and its potential for humanity. My committee, Dr. Julie Pennington
and Dr. Steve Rock, for their input, suggestions and enthusiasm for my research. And above all,
my advisor, Dr. Dianna Townsend, whose understanding, support, constructive criticism and
encouragement carried me through this process and gave me the confidence to pursue further
research opportunities in my career.
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 5
Table of Contents
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….…………8
Purpose of the Study ………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………….9
Research Questions …………………………………………………………………………………………………….….………10
Review of the Literature …………………………………………………………………………………………….……………10
Framework of the Literature Review …………………………………………………………………….…….10
Social Technology Use During the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street ……………………….11
Digital Literacies...………………………………………………………………………………………….…………….12
Distributed Intelligence …………………………………………………………………….……………..13
Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants .………………………………………………………………………..14
Criticisms of Digital Natives …………………………………………………………………………………………15
Cyberactivism ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..16
Role of Activist Literacy in Cyberactivism ………………………………………………………...17
Instruments of Cyberactivism ……………………………………………….………………………….18
Criticisms of Cyberactivism ………………………………………………………………………………18
Summary of Literature Review …………………………………………………………………………20
Methods………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….21
Description of Study …………………………………………………………………………………………………….21
Instrumentation …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..21
Participants ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….22
Procedure ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………23
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 6
Results …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….23
Demographics of Participants ………………………………………………………………………………………24
Table 1: Age of participants ……………………………………………………………………………..25
Table 2: Education of participants ……………………………………………………………………26
Table 3: Age (in years) of first computer use ……………………………………………………27
Table 4: Age (in years) of first internet use ………………………………………………………28
Identification as Activists …………………………………………………………………………………………….28
Table 5: Identification as activist ……………………………………………………………………..29
Use of Online Petitions…………………………………………………………………………………………………29
Table 6: Petition signage ………………………………………………………………………………….30
Use of Devices………………………………………………………………………………………………………………30
Table 7: Devices used to participate in online discussions ………………………………..31
Use of Social Networks …………………………………………………………………………………..……………31
Table 8: Use of social networks ………………………………………………………………………..32
Table 9: Participation in online political discussions …………………………………………33
Access of News and Information…………………………………………………………………………………..33
Table 10: Preferred outlet for accessing news ………………………………………………….34
Table 11: Preferred outlet when first researching a political cause ………………….35
Summary of Results …………………………………………………………………………………………………….35
Discussion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….35
Summary of the Problems and Purpose of the Study …………………………………………………..35
Interpretation of the Findings ………………………………………………………………………….………….36
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 7
Limitations of Present Study ……………………………………………………………………………………….39
Implication for Future Research ………………………………………………………………………………….39
References ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..41
APPENDIX A: Survey of Cyberactivist Habits ……………………………………………………………………………47
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 8
Introduction
For youth in the United States, the internet is a central aspect of their lives, serving
various purposes—educational, social and political. Digital natives—defined as people born
and raised with technology heavily integrated into their day-to-day tasks and activities
(Prensky, 2001; Palfrey & Gasser, 2008)—are prone to frequent participation on the web; thus,
their involvement in political activism is now largely technological. However, the internet is
now a presence in the majority of American homes; it is not just digital natives using the web
for political purposes.
Tech-based activism is known as cyberactivism, and cyberactivism has been the
foundation for several recent large-scale political movements; specifically, the Arab Spring and
Occupy Wall Street (El-Nawawy & Khamis, 2012). Both movements, organized and
demonstrated by people of all ages but heralded by youth, had strong web presences, allowing
for the movements' progress to be showcased to the world. Participating in digital activism is
very much a skill—it involves several types of digital and traditional literacies, including critical
thinking, writing, media literacy and political literacy.
Cyberactivism comes naturally to many digital natives who are used to sharing opinions
and beliefs on social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter (Amin, 2010; Palfrey &
Gasser, 2008). Social media also promotes real-world interactions, fostering event-planning
and meetups. These tools allowed for thousands of protestors to participate with both the
Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street in the actual locations. However, the digital components of
these movements lasted much longer than the in-person protests, enabling protestors to
develop and redefine their fights as the movements continued to unfold.
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 9
On a smaller scale, these habits are enacted every day by people involved in causes
across the spectrum. Users of websites like Twitter, Facebook and Reddit look to online
petitions, livestreams, forum discussions, and features like “reblog” or “retweet” to participate
in movements (El-Nawawy & Khamis, 2012). Each outlet offers a different way to participate—
some lean more toward “passive,” in the sense that they do not require posting or seeking out
original content. Others require “active” participation through discussion, providing evidence
or proof, locating an article on one website and sharing it on another.
Current scholarship suggests that age plays a role in the differences of this behavior.
Digital natives often view resharing as effective—why repeat what has already been said once
so effectively? A “like” demonstrates consent or approval. Meanwhile, digital immigrants
infuse activity on social media with responses, opinion and additional information. Therein lies
the fundamental difference between “active” and “passive” (Rotman et al., 2011).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine any trends in the web-based outlets and
habits associated with digital natives to participate in political discussion and activism.
Because cyberactivism is a relatively recent field of study, this data helps drive future research
focused on specific types of web-based resources, such as social media and online petitioning.
The data from this study was intended to identify the preferences of particular technology
platforms by digital natives, as well as digital immigrants, to help predict future trends
of cyberactivism. This has larger implications in the future of democracy about how
constituents will choose to participate in the democratic process with the advent of new
technologies.
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 10
Research Questions
The research questions for this study were as followed:
1) How do digital natives use web-based resources to participate in political movements?
2) What are the habitual differences between digital natives and digital immigrants in the
use of web-based resources to participate in political movements and discussion?
Review of the Literature
In 2010, a revolution erupted in the Middle East. The fire of revolution quickly spread
throughout the world. But what seemed like an immediate blaze of civil unrest was in reality a
slow burn—the result of months, even years, of collaboration and preparation, and much of it
took place on the internet. This instigated a research movement centered around digital
activism and its implications for the future (Graziano, 2012; Campante & Chor, 2012; Hoffman
& Jamal, 2012; Sivitanides & Marcos, 2010). Several synonyms of digital activism include online
activism, web activism, cyberactivism and hacktivism (Graziano, 2012; Krapp, 2005; Sivitanides
& Marcos, 2011). For the purposes of this paper, the term “cyberactivism” will be used, as it
has been embraced by digital activists, and is a succinct term that can be used as either a noun
or an adjective.
Framework of Literature Review
It’s important to understand the context for which social networking and web-based
tools were used during Occupy Wall Street and Arab Spring. Cyberactivism as a research topic
encompasses several fields of research, such as digital literacies and the concept of distributed
intelligence, which explores how people think and collaborate using technology for political
purposes. Expanding on this, it is necessary to define the characteristics of digital natives and
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 11
digital immigrants. Synthesizing these separate fields of research is what constitutes much of
current cyberactivist literature.
Social Technology Use During the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street
The Arab Spring was unlike any political event in modern history (Campante & Chor,
2012; Graziano, 2012; Hoffman & Jamal, 2012; Kerton, 2012). Rather than torches, protestors
held lit-up smartphones as they marched through the streets, documenting nearly every action
and broadcasting it throughout the entire world. Young men and women sat on sidewalks with
laptops and tablets, using Twitter and Facebook as outlets for political expression while also
marching and protesting (Amin, 2010; Howard & Duffy, 2011; Khondker, 2011; Sivitanides &
Marcos, 2011; Valenzuela, 2013).
A few months later, Occupy Wall Street formed in July 2011 in the bedrooms of
American activists across the country. Responding to the “call for action” by the
magazine Adbusters, a handful of young people—most under the age of 25—established a
website, a forum, and an internet relay channel (IRC) to communicate. Known as “occupiers,”
they established the logistics of a New York City-based demonstration, intended to last for
months, even years. Traditional political forums—town hall meetings, general assemblies,
debates and strategy meetings—took place on the web through free services like Skype or
through email exchange (Gaby & Caren, 2012; Ladhani, 2011). While the protestors eventually
left the physical occupation of Zucatti Park, Occupy Wall Street continues to have a strong
online presence (Ladhani, 2011; Zápotočná, 2012).
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 12
Digital Literacies
The people involved in these initially web-based political movements demonstrate
remarkable digital literacies—the skills to understand and use electronic media (Bawden, 2001).
Digital literacies has several synonyms, including computer literacy, IT literacy, media literacy,
network literacy and information literacy (Bawden, 2001). For the purposes of this research,
the term digital literacies will be used, because it encompasses all forms of new media and
technological devices, including computers, and also smartphones and tablets, for which there
are a limited amount of empirical studies (Howard & Duffy, 2011).
The research of digital literacies became popular during the 1990s, when technology
became more readily available for much of the Western world. While literacy once referred to
the ability to read and write, this has since evolved from exclusively print sources to digital
sources as well. As Bawden (2001) argues, the skills used in traditional (print) and digital
literacies are largely the same. However, digital literacy also encompasses the ability to think
critically about new information, and also demonstrates competency in “communication skills
which enable the individual to function, appropriate to his age, independently in society”
(Hillrich, 1976). According to McClure (1994), who is attributed as coining the term “network
literacy,” a digital literate person also possesses:
“knowledge: an awareness of the range and uses of networked resources; an
understanding of the role and uses of networked information in problem solving and
‘basic life activities; an understanding of the system by which networked information is
generated, managed and made available; and skills: retrieval of specific types of
information from networks; manipulation of networked information[--]combining,
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 13
enhancing, adding value; use of networked information to help make work-related and
personal decisions.” (pg. 117)
Lanham (1995) builds on this, noting that digital literacy is also about decoding, deciphering and
synthesizing between a “shifting mixture of words, images and sounds.” Thus, it’s important to
distinguish that digital literacy is not simply an extension of traditional literacy, but a set of skills
and knowledge in its own right (Hillrich, 1976; McClure, 1994).
Distributed intelligence. Digital literacy, and subsequently cyberactivism, often taps
into a community’s distributed intelligence. Distributed intelligence refers to members of a
community—each offering individual skills—collaborating on a unified cause or project (Fischer
& Konomi, 2007; Innes and Booher, 2000). Distributed intelligence, also sometimes referred to
as distributed cognition, is “a complex, adaptive learning system that can be sustainable in the
face of unpredictable futures” (Innes & Booher, 2010). In the event of cyberactivism, or
activism of any sort, distributed intelligence refers to how people “self-organize” outside of the
government structure (Fischer & Konomi, 2007; Innes & Booher, 2010). Philosopher Wilhelm
Wundt, attributed to the field of distributed cognition, argued that literacy is fundamentally a
public skill; no one person dictates what becomes language or culture (Solomon,
1993). Cyberactivism, too, enables people to participate in political movements in many ways,
aside from the standard civic expectations such as voting or attending in-person political rallies.
Thus, cyberactivism is largely driven by distributed intelligence based on the way discussion and
collaboration arises in virtual environments.
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 14
Digital Natives and Digital immigrants
With an abundance of accessible technologies, it’s easier than ever for people to be
connected to global issues and current events. In the United States, people born in the last
couple of decades are immersed in technology from birth. These are the people known as
“digital natives” (Gaston, 2006; Palfrey & Gasser, 2008; Prensky, 2001). Subsequently, those
born before the 1980s are referred to as “digital immigrants” (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008; Prensky,
2001;). Digital natives are youth between ages of 15-24, and have used the internet for a
minimum of five years. As mentioned before, there is some scholarly controversy over the
accuracy of these terms. However, this paper seeks to evaluate the characteristics of both
groups and, in an effort to adhere to the standards of other research published in this field, will
follow suit. It is the researcher’s hope that new terms will soon emerge and become the
standards for the field.
Because of the abundance of technology introduced to digital natives at a young age,
digital natives often grow up with a deeply ingrained skillset and understanding of how to use
technology and internet-based resources in all aspects of life (Bawden, 2001; Gaston, 2006;
Palfrey & Gasser, 2008; Prensky, 2001). Digital natives possess finely tuned digital and
information literacies, specifically reading, writing, communicating and learning on digital
platforms such as computers and mobile devices (Bawden, 2001; Ng, 2012; Palfrey & Gasser,
2008; Prensky, 2001). Thus, digital natives go first to web-based platforms, rather than in-
person meetings, to enact change and conduct most day-to-day tasks (Crisco, 2009). However,
many digital natives are not consciously aware that they possess these skills (Bawden, 2001; Ng,
2012; Palfrey & Gasser, 2008). Digital natives are familiar with expressing opinions often
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 15
through social networking and are often experienced in participating in debate (Palfrey &
Gasser, 2008; Prensky, 2001).
Prensky (2001) refers to those born before the 1980s as “digital immigrants,” suggesting
that they approach technology as a learned, as opposed to highly integrated, skill. This term
has been highly controversial; however, there is a lack of an equally scholarly alternative. Thus,
“digital immigrants” will be used throughout this paper purely as a way to refer to those born
after 1989. Digital immigrants are those who are introduced to technology later on in life, and
are therefore not “native” to it (Gaston, 2006; Prensky, 2001). This does not mean that digital
immigrants are not proficient in technology, as many are in the same generation as digital
natives or spend a great deal of time immersed in technology; however, according to Prensky
(2001), it does play a role in perceptions toward technology. Digital immigrants are more likely
to view technology, and social media in particular, as a tool secondary to in-person interactions
(Gaston, 2006).
Criticisms of Digital Natives
New research indicates that “digital natives” could be an overreaching term. According
to a new study published by the International Telecommunications Union (2013), 96 percent of
American millennials are digital natives. This is comparable to millenials in Asian countries
where technology has been integrated into homes and is widely valued (International
Telecommunications Union [ITU], 2013). However, this is not indicative of the rest of the world.
In the study, digital natives is seen as a Western construct. Youth in developing countries do
not have the same access to technology; thus, they often don’t meet the minimum
requirements to be classified as digital natives. This is especially relevant to political
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 16
movements, as recent protests in countries such as Egypt, Syria, Brazil and Turkey were largely
comprised of youth who are familiar with technology but may not have grown up with it like
American digital natives (Neumayer & Raffl, 2008).
Furthermore, the terms “native” and “immigrant” become especially problematic, as
the people the terms refer to often fall, quite literally, into those categories. The terms have
racial implications, too, and have negative connotations—digital “natives” are often criticized
for prioritizing technology, social networking and the internet over in-person interactions;
whereas digital “immigrants” are seen as outsiders infringing on youth culture. While these
critiques are important in our increasingly global society, the current study focuses on digitally-
active people in a developed, Western society. Therefore, the term “digital native” represents
a useful construct in this research.
Cyberactivism
Because digital natives rely heavily on technology and internet access, a new form of
technology-based civic engagement has emerged, known as cyberactivism (Amin, 2010;
Christensen, 2011; Crisco, 2009; Valenzuela, 2013). Cyberactivism is a subset of civic literacy
and uses many of the same skills. The realms of activism are often distinguished through the
terms “digital activism” and “real-world activism.” However, this is problematic because it
implies that digital activism occurs outside the realm of real-world issues (Joyce, 2010).
Resources like Change.org and Washington D.C.'s web portal for creating petitions and sending
them to members of the U.S. government demonstrate how digital activism has become the
first step in many real-world movements.
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 17
Digital natives involved in current affairs go first to digital realms in order to protest,
discuss and enact social change. Political events such as the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street
and the Syrian Uprising all began as online movements, quickly evolving into full-fledged
political efforts (Gaby & Caren, 2012; Khondker, 2011). And now, most causes begin with a web
component—environmental issues, gender inequality, elections, human rights and other causes
are largely discussed online first before any other action is taken. The web has become a
hotbed for political discussion and engagement. Brunsting and Postmes (2002) attribute the
rise in web-based activism, in part, to a desire for collective action, and to involve activists who
would normally remain on the periphery to participate.
Role of activist literacy in cyberactivism. Activist literacy plays an important role in
empowering marginalized communities (Hart, 2006; Jocson, 2008; Welch & Freebody, 1993).
Many educators have made civic literacy a priority in classroom learning, linking it to strong
critical thinking, writing, reading and analytical skills (Kahne, 2010; Welch & Freebody, 1993).
Literacy itself has long been linked to social justice because literacy correlates to who is able to
participate in democratic processes (Freire, 1970; Hart, 2006; Jocson, 2008).
While civic and activist literacy have had a significant impact in making current events relevant
for students in elementary and secondary school, these skills are not encouraged once students
reach college (Biddix, 2010; McCafferty, 2011). However, college students respond well to
opportunities to express opinion and critical thinking on web forums, making links between
classroom learning to relevant issues (Biddix, 2010; Ciardiello, 2004; Lin, 2010). This can be
cultivated by information professionals such as librarians, journalists and connected educators
(Bruce & Lampson, 2002; Culver & Jacobson, 2012; Livingstone, 2008). Student-led efforts in
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 18
educational settings, often digital, have been successful because students are able to use
technologies with which they are familiar (Biddix, 2010; Bruce & Lampson, 2002; Ciardiello,
2004; Culver & Jacobson, 2012). Support for this process on college campuses, including
providing the support for students to engage in political processes, has resulted in a more
engaged student body, where students are aware of their own media literacy and use it both
inside and outside classroom settings (Biddix, 2010; Ciardiello, 2004; Livingstone, 2008).
Instruments of cyberactivism. Essentially, any form of political participation online can
be considered cyberactivism. However, some tools and resources are more popular than
others. Twitter and Facebook are often attributed as the most popular tools, but forums, news
websites and smaller social networking sites are also used (Amin, 2010; Christensen, 2011;
DeLuca, Lawson & Sun, 2012; Howard & Duffy, 2011; Joyce, 2010; Khondker, 2011; Neumayer &
Raffl, 2008). According to Rotman et al. (2011), websites that foster uploading and exchange of
multimedia such as YouTube (video) and Flickr (photography) “introduced the opportunity for
wide-scale, online social participation” (pp. 3). In the past few years, petitions and surveys have
also gained popularity and have been embraced by governments, including the United States
government, as a streamlined approach to addressing issues from constituents. Petition sites
like Change.org, ThePetitionSite.com, and the White House’s We the People portal have
become popular outlets for expression when constituents feel compelled to speak up to
representatives. Rather than writing a letter or email, constituents can now create a petition,
gain signatures, and send that directly to a representative.
Criticisms of cyberactivism. There has also long been a negative stigma placed upon
digital natives who seek out likeminded people on the internet, as people from older
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 19
generations see it as a passive way to participate in discussion (Boulianne, 2009; McCafferty,
2011; Rotman et al, 2011). A term to describe this is called “slacktivism,” which refers to
activist efforts started on the web intended to “raise awareness” without facilitating an in-
person event or an effort with tangible results (Boulianne, 2009; McCafferty, 2011). A similar
term is “clicktivism,” which refers to the act of clicking as an activist behavior—clicking to “like”
a post on Facebook, upvote a post on Reddit, retweet an article on Twitter, changing a profile
picture, and other typical activities on a social networking website (Bakardjieva, Svensson &
Skoric, 2012). Rotman et al. (2011) distinguish between “slacktivism”—associated with
passiveness—and “practical activism”:
“We define ‘slacktivism’ as low-risk, low-cost activity via social media, whose purpose is
to raise awareness, produce change, or grant satisfaction to the person engaged in the
activity; We define ‘practical activism’ as the use of a direct, proactive and often
confrontational action towards attaining a societal change” (pp. 3).
Slacktivism is a term generally referring to digital natives, who often see social media as being
an equally “real” form of communicating and maintaining relationships; thus, “slacktivist”
gestures such as changing a profile picture to raise awareness of a cause are viewed as
legitimate forms of participation and also fulfills an ego-driven desire to be seen as politically
literate and involved (Baston, 2003; McCafferty, 2011; Rotman et al., 2011). Clearly, this does
not include all digital natives, as the majority of participants in the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall
Street were youth; however, it does indicate a potential trend toward more passive
involvement in political causes (Boulianne, 2009).
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 20
Summary of Literature Review
In this chapter, several concepts were explored. First, it was important to define the
concept of digital literacy, which refers to the ability to read, write, and communicate using
digital tools and devices (Lanham, 1995; Lankshear & Knobel, 2006). Distributed intelligence, in
which the members of an online or in-person community each take on a role to achieve shared
goals, builds upon those digital literacies. From this arises cyberactivism, a phenomenon in
which web-based resources are used to accomplish political activism, as demonstrated by the
large technological presences in Occupy Wall Street and the Arab Spring (Bakardjieva et al.,
2012; El-Nawawy & Khamis, 2012; Gaby & Caren, 2012; Graziano, 2012). Cyberactivism has
been dominated by digital natives, a term created by Prensky (2001) that refers to those who
grow up with technology and the internet heavily integrated into their lives. However, a
criticism is that cyberactivism is an ineffective form of activism as it takes place on the internet
and encourages passive forms of activism (Bakardjieva et al., 2012; Rotman et al., 2011).
Subsequently, the term “digital natives” refers predominately to Western youth who are able
to access technology more than youth from developing countries (Gaston, 2009; ITU, 2013).
With these criticisms in mind, this study sought to evaluate the cyberactivist habits of digital
natives and digital immigrants.
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 21
Methods
Description of Study
The study examines how digital natives use the internet to participate in political
activities. As part of this study, the Survey on Cyberactivist Habits of Digital Natives was created
to collect data on how people identify as activists and what tools they use to participate in
discussion, research topics, access the news and plan or attend real-world events (Appendix A).
The survey was specifically designed to be taken quickly via a web survey interface.
This study uses a survey with correlational analyses, based on the existing research on
the subject of cyberactivism. Because this is a global topic, many studies in this field take a
quantitative approach to determine if the results are statistically significant (Vis, 2013). A
correlational approach was taken to determine the habits of digital natives and digital
immigrants, and subsequently, to compare the data across age groups.
Instrumentation
The first step in creating the survey involved reviewing relevant literature that explored
the patterns, themes and habits pertaining to digital activism. Current research highlights
several factors: the way digital natives use web-based tools for digital activism; which websites
and devices are used most often; and which movements these tools and devices have been
used in. Thus the questions were created based off of these themes, and also to gather input
from digital immigrants to see if the themes were consistent across age groups.
The survey instrument consisted of 10 questions, starting with basic demographic
information—current age, level of education, age of first computer use and age of first internet
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 22
use. Then, the questions inquired about the participant’s activity level of social networking;
identification as an activist; preferences for accessing and researching information on causes;
and habits of sharing and discussing political news. Questions were given as a multiple choice
or with a small text box in which the participant could include a short response (Appendix A).
Several noteable responses are highlighted in the discussion.
Participants
This study looks at both digital natives and digital immigrants, who are defined based on
their age. Specifically, digital natives are considered to be those who were born after
technology had become a mainstream way of life. Prensky (2001) establishes this as people
born after 1980. However, some researchers say the true divide happens in the late 1980s;
some go as far to say the term only applies to people under the age of 20 years old, referring to
those born in or after 1993 (ITU, 2013). According to the International Telecommunications
Union (2013), a digital native is a person between 15 and 24 years old, with a minimum of 5
years of active internet and computer use. In an effort to be true to the consensus in the field,
this paper classifies digital natives as those born in or after 1988, thus indicating that the oldest
digital natives are 24 years old.
The survey was first administered online through Facebook, and then through Twitter
using hashtag #cyberactivism. The hashtag was used to generate exposure to the survey.
Subsequently, the survey was also posted on Reddit.com in related forums on activism, literacy,
and technology. Distribution through social networking resulted in more than 200 responses.
In order to have more data to analyze differences between age groups, the survey was then
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 23
administered specifically to students attending college in Northern California. From this, 100
responses were collected. This provided enough data to compare responses based on age.
Procedure
All responses for the survey were anonymous. The 305 responses were collected
digitally using a Google Form for the survey, and a Google Spreadsheet to track results. The
Google resources were only accessible by the researcher and had to be accessed with a
password. Results were then imported into an Excel spreadsheet, and subsequently uploaded
and coded into an SPSS document. All data was analyzed in SPSS software using crosstabulation
and Chi-square analysis. The responses for questions about the use of social networking and
forums were coded based on “passive” and “active” use (Appendix A). These codes were taken
from Rotman et al.’s (2011) determination—“passive” refers to “low-risk, low-cost activity”
using social networking; “active” refers to “confrontational action.” However, social
networking habits can be differentiated as “passive” and “active.” “Liking” or “retweeting” an
article or status update on Facebook and Twitter are passive because the user is responding to
content posted by others, and does not offer original commentary or instigate discussion.
Posting an article by taking the URL from another source or website and sharing it on a social
networking site is considerably more passive, as it is not an action reliant on existing content.
Results
A Chi square test with crosstabulation was performed to examine the relation between
cyberactivist habits and age. The sample population included 305 people, and a total of 253
participants answered all of the questions.
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 24
Demographics of Participants
Of the total participants, 41 percent were digital immigrants (n = 121) and 59 percent
were digital natives (n = 176). Eight participants did not provide their age. Participants were
also asked about their level of education. However, crosstabulation revealed few findings
correlating education level and habits. The majority of digital natives were college students (75
percent), and the majority of digital immigrants were graduate students (25 percent), as
indicated in Table 2.
Digital natives were shown to use both computers and the internet at a younger age
than digital immigrants. Of the digital natives (n = 161), 20 percent first used a computer under
the age of 5; 78 percent first used a computer between 6 and 11 years old; and 2 percent first
used a computer older than 11 years old. While 57 percent of digital immigrants (n = 113) also
used a computer first between the ages of 6 and 11, they were, on average, older than digital
natives when it came to childhood internet use: 69 percent of digital natives compared to 26
percent of digital immigrants. These frequencies were statistically significant, indicating that
there is a generational difference in childhood computer use, (n = 274) = 53, p < .001, and
internet use, (n = 265) = 55.6, p < .001.
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 25
Table 1
Age of participants
Age n %
0 – 24 (DN: Digital Natives)
176 59
25+ (DI: Digital Immigrants) 121 41
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 26
Table 2
Education of participants
Level n % of DN % of DI
High school student 8 4 0
College student 165 75 3
College Graduate 32 3 15
Graduate student 68 14 25
Did not attend college
23 6 11
Note. DN = digital natives; DI = digital immigrants.
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 27
Table 3:
Age (in years) of first computer use
Age n % of DN % of DI X²
> 5 42 20 9
6 - 11 189 78 57 53*
< 11 43 2 35
Note. DN = digital natives; DI = digital immigrants.*p < .001
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 28
Table 4:
Age (in years) of first internet use
Age n % of DN % of DI X²
> 5 5 3.2 0
6 - 11 135 69 26 55.6*
< 11 125 28 74
Note. DN = digital natives; DI = digital immigrants. *p < .001
Identification as Activists
Responses of digital natives and digital immigrants identifying as activists were similar.
Participants were given the options “yes,” “no,” “on occasion” and “only for a specific issue”
(Appendix A). Among digital natives (n = 174), 71 percent replied “yes,” “on occasion” and “only
for a specific issue.” Similarly, 69 percent of digital immigrants (n = 121) identified as activists in
some capacity. As indicated in figures crosstabulated in Table 5, there was not a significant
relationship between age and identity (n = 295) = 1.6, p > .05. However, it’s worth noting that
digital immigrants as a group had a higher percentage of identifying as an activist.
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 29
Table 5
Identification as activist
Response n % of DN % of DI X²
Yes
86 28 31
No
42 13 16
On occasion
132 48 41 1.6
Only for a specific issue
35 11 13
Note. DN = digital natives; DI = digital immigrants.
Use of Online Petitions
Both digital natives and digital immigrants reported high use of signing online petitions.
Thus, age was not significant in revealing differences in petition use, (n = 271) = .54, p > .05.
The survey question asked if the participant had either created or signed an online petition, and
a text box allowed for written responses (some of which are highlighted in the Discussion).
Responses were consistent and comparable across age groups, as indicated in Table 6.
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 30
Table 6
Petition signage
Response n % of DN % of DI X²
Yes 95 37 63 .54
No 176 32 68
Note. DN = digital natives; DI = digital immigrants.
Use of Devices
As shown in Table 7, 70 percent of digital natives preferred mobile devices, including
smartphones, tablets and laptops, but also indicated use of stationary (desktop) computers.
Digital immigrants were slightly more likely to use mostly desktop computers, indicating a
preference for stationary computer usage, (n = 160) = 8, p < .05. The responses, as shown in
Table 7, were relatively comparable.
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 31
Table 7
Devices used to participate in online discussions
Types of devices n % of DN % of DI X²
Mobile 160 70 53 8*
Stationary Both
31
62
11
19
15
32
Note. DN = digital natives; DI = digital immigrants.*p < .05
Use of Social Networks
However, although digital natives were shown to be more mobile, digital immigrants
were more likely to engage in “active” forms of activism. On average, digital natives used social
networking for political means in passive ways—such as retweeting a link on Twitter or liking a
status on Facebook; several options for common activities were given in a checklist in the
survey, as seen in Appendix A. Digital immigrants preferred active means such as posting an
article from an outside source or starting a forum conversation. Table 8 shows the responses
based on passive and active web activity. These results are statistically significant; 81 percent of
digital immigrants indicated an “active” use of social networking, compared to 62 percent of
digital immigrants, (n = 256) = 10.8, p < .001. Table 8 shows there is a relationship between
digital natives and the likeliness of discussing political issues online, either using social
networking or forums, (n = 172) = 10.4, p < .05.
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 32
Table 8
Use of social networks
n % of DN % of DI X²
Passive 77
38 20 10.8*
Active 179 62 86
Note. DN = digital natives; DI = digital immigrants. *p < .001
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 33
Table 9
Participation in online political discussions
n % of DN % of DI X²
Never 42 13 16
Rarely 76 24 29
Occasionally 125 49 34 10.4*
Often 37 11 15
Frequently 11 2 7
Note. DN = digital natives; DI = digital immigrants.*p < .05
Access of News and Information
As shown in Table 10, there was not a relationship between age and using the web to
access news. Both digital natives and digital immigrants demonstrated frequent use of web-
based resources to access news; 95 percent of digital natives used the internet to access news
(n = 173), and 93 percent of digital immigrants also used the internet for this purpose (n = 121)
= 2.1, p > 0.5. Comedy television was popular among digital natives, whereas network
television was popular with digital immigrants. Similarly, both digital natives and digital
immigrants reported using the internet as the first step toward educating themselves on
political causes (n = 286). Digital immigrants (n = 115) were more likely to seek out person-to-
person conversations and reference print sources than digital natives (n = 171); 20 percent of
digital immigrants used non-web sources, whereas 9 percent of digital natives reported using
sources other than social networking or web-based research (Table 12). However, this was not
statistically significant, as both digital natives (n = 171) and digital immigrants (n = 115) largely
favored the internet as a first step for researching a political cause, (n = 276) = 6.8, p > .05.
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 34
Table 10
Preferred outlet for accessing news
Outlet n % of DN % of DI X²
Web 277 95 112
Television 13 4 5 2.1
Print 4 1 3
Note. DN = digital natives; DI = digital immigrants.
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 35
Table 11
Preferred outlet when first researching a political cause
n % of DN % of DI X²
Post on social networking Look up online
23
222
7
83
10
70
6.8 Discuss in-person
34 8 17
Consult print resource
7
2
3
Note. DN = digital natives; DI = digital immigrants.
Summary of Results
Ultimately, age did indicate some major differences in habit, specifically in the use of
social networking. Digital natives were more likely to participate passively in political
discussions, whereas digital immigrants favored more active means. Digital natives are also
more mobile than digital immigrants, but many participants from both groups still used a mix of
mobile and stationary devices. The results also revealed that the internet is a prevalent political
resource for both digital natives and digital immigrants. Digital natives and digital immigrants
alike use the web to access news and information.
Discussion
Summary of the Problems and Purpose of the Study
This study sought to determine how digital natives engage in political activism using the
web, and how these habits differ from digital immigrants. The web offers many resources, so
the researcher targeted specific outlets based on previous scholarship in the field such as online
petitions; social networking; forums; and online news access. Because politics are becoming
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 36
increasingly more driven by the web, it is important for researchers to understand what this
means for the future of political activism and the demographic leading these changes (Kerton,
2012; Neumayer & Raffl, 2008; Rotman et al., 2011; Sivitanides & Marcos, 2011).
Interpretation of the Findings
Several themes emerged in the results. Digital natives used computers and the internet
on average several years earlier than digital immigrants, given that digital natives are exposed
to technology at much younger ages. Thus, digital natives closely relate web activity to their in-
person identity. Despite engaging in more passive forms of activism, digital natives identified as
activists similarly to digital immigrants. This implies that digital natives view activism differently
from digital immigrants, suggesting that they view discussion and content sharing on social
media as effective end-means (Joyce, 2010).
Digital immigrants and digital natives alike were active in signing petitions. Many
responses cited specific websites and specific causes. Digital natives used a multitude of
petition sites, from the popular Change.org to forms created on cause websites. Internet
causes, such as the recent Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) bill, were mentioned frequently by
digital natives in the question’s text box. Digital immigrants who chose to include causes in
their response frequently mentioned petitions on environmental, human rights and gun
control. These responses indicate the potential for further investigation about how
cyberactivism occurs within specific political movements (Amin, 2010).
Because digital natives are interested in causes that impact the freedom and integrity of
the internet, this shows that their perspective on using passive web-based activism might
actually be the preferred approach to fighting for that cause (Croeser, 2012). This is not to say
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 37
that digital natives only stated internet causes: human rights, gay rights, women’s rights, anti-
bullying campaigns and gun legislation (for or against) were also mentioned often.
However, while the results showed that digital natives and digital immigrants both
signed online petitions, several participants expressed doubts at the action’s effectiveness.
Two participants in particular—one born in 1989, the other born in 1992—expressed
disillusionment with online petitioning.
I’m sure I’ve signed a petition… couldn’t tell you what it was for. I don’t sign them
anymore, because I don’t think the online ones really accomplish anything. – survey
participant, age 24.
Some time ago I signed something with the impression it would actually do something. –
survey participant, age 21.
None of the digital immigrants in the study expressed these doubts. One possible explanation
for this is that digital immigrants see online petitions as a part of activism, not the only act
necessary, and are more likely to look for results based on real-world changes. While digital
natives often expect to see results just from web-based actions, this indicates that some digital
natives may become frustrated with the absence of results (Crisco, 2009; Joyce, 2010;
McCafferty, 2011).
Use of social media differed greatly between digital natives and non-digital natives.
Facebook is most popular with people age 18-29, so it was unsurprising that both groups used
Facebook in some capacity. Twitter also has the same prominent demographic, but less users
than Facebook (Rotman et al., 2011). Forum use was also evenly distributed.
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 38
The difference was in how these tools are used—digital natives preferred passive means
of social media activism, “liking” a Facebook status as opposed to sharing an article on
Facebook. Tweets on Twitter were often retweeted, but not posted—thus indicating that digital
natives feel comfortable sharing content already posted on a social network, but less so sharing
an article they found interesting or impactful. Digital immigrants, while also active on social
networking, were more interested in incorporating in-person components to the activist
process. That they also preferred active means of sharing indicates that they may possess a
confidence in their political beliefs and opinions more so than digital natives (Rosen, 2010; Zur
& Zur, 2011). This is due partly in how digital natives and digital immigrants view social
networking; because digital natives view social networks as a legitimate form of friendship and
communication, they are less likely to start debates in the interest of preserving their networks
(Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).
Ultimately, with the development of new mobile and social technologies, cyberactivism
is likely to continue transforming within the political sphere with digital natives at the helm,
potentially impacting other civic activities, such as elections (Kolsaker, 2008; Vitak, Zube,
Smock, Carr, Ellison & Lampe, 2011; Youmans & York, 2012). Since Occupy Wall Street and the
Arab Spring—and more recent protests in Syria, Turkey and Greece—there have also been
indications that digital natives and digital immigrants are revisiting social networks as tools
during political movements, favoring more active means for local protests and more passive
means for global awareness (El-Nawawy & Khamis, 2012; Youmans & York, 2012).
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 39
Limitations of Present Study
Upon analysis of the data, several flaws of the survey instrument became apparent.
Although each question was derived from the theoretical framework, some of the questions
opened up new questions away from the original hypothesis. Allowing participants to indicate
more specific ranges using a Likert scale would have been more effective to better understand
the frequency of the habits questioned in the survey. For instance, participants were asked how
they access the news, but not how often—this data would have been beneficial to interpreting
the participants’ habits, particularly as cyberactivism behaviors are influenced by the amount of
time digital natives spend on the web (Amin, 2010; Boulianne, 2009).
A trend in new research on cyberactivism focuses on a specific tool—for instance, online
petitions, the use of hashtags to track news, and liveblogging. A broader approach was taken in
this study when constructing the survey instrument, one which used the existing literature.
However, this is a rapidly developing field, and, while in the process of conducting this research,
more research has emerged which would inform the development of updated research
questions. Furthermore, because this data is intended to be placed in a larger context of
technology and political activism, more inquiries about time, usage and attitude would have
provided a sounder foundation to build upon. The primary investigator intends to develop the
survey for future research.
Implications for Future Research
This study opened up several areas in need of additional research. One area of
importance includes examining the differences in perception toward cyberactivism between
participants in Occupy Wall Street and Arab Spring; because characteristics of digital natives
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 40
varies based on location, it is clear that geography plays a role in how social media is used
during political movements. Beyond this potential study, there are several additional areas in
need of further inquiry. The first is investigating the impact of particular outlets, specifically
livestreaming, social media, and online petitions, as activist tools. Based on the feedback given
in the survey, many cyberactivists remarked on the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of online
petitions, and this is quickly becoming a popular branch of study within social technology
research. Also, the indications of digital natives as passive participants should be researched
with controlled populations, to determine if this is truly reflective of digital natives as a
population. As such, digital immigrants who prefer more active forms of political participation
may begin feeling alienated by the trends of cyberactivism. This is an opportunity for
researchers to determine how digital immigrants can better use their action-based approach to
activism on the web, while subsequently discovering how digital natives passivity can be
applied to more action-based participation.
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 41
References
Amin, R. (2010). The empire strikes back: Social media uprisings and the future of
cyberactivism. Kennedy School Review, 64–66.
Bakardjieva, M., Svensson, J. & Skoric, M. M. (2012). Digital citizenship and activism: questions
of power and participation online. JeDEM, 4(1), 1-4.
Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N., & Tsang, J. (2003). Four motives for community involvement. Journal
of Social Issues, 58(3), 429-445.
Bawden, D. (2001). Information and digital literacies: a review of concepts. Journal of
Documentation, 57(2), 218–259.
Biddix, J. P. (2010). Technology uses in campus activism from 2000 to 2008: implications for
civic learning. Journal of College Student Development, 51(6), 679-693.
Boulianne, S. (2009). Does Internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research.
Political Communication, 26, 193-211.
Bruce, H., & Lampson, M. (2002). Information professionals as agents for information literacy.
Education for Information, 20(2), 81–106.
Brunsting, S., & Postmes, T. (2002). Social movement participation in the digital age: predicting
offline and online collective action. Small Group Research, 33(3), 525-554.
Campante, F. R., & Chor, D. (2012). Why was the Arab World poised for revolution? Schooling,
economic opportunities, and the Arab Spring. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(2),
167-188.
Christensen, C. (2011). Twitter revolutions? Addressing social media and dissent. The
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 42
Communication Review, 14(3), 155–157.
Ciardiello, A. V. (2004). Democracy’s young heroes: An instructional model of critical literacy
practices. Reading, 58(2), 138–147.
Crisco, V. (2009). Activating activist literacy: discovering dispositions for civic identity
development. Literacy, 2(2), 31-51.
Croeser, S. (2012). Contested technologies: the emergence of the digital literacies movement.
FirstMonday, 17(8), 1-13.
Culver, S., & Jacobson, T. (2012). Media literacy and its use as a method to encourage civic
engagement. Comunicar, 20(39), 73-80.
El-Nawawy, M. & Khamis, S. (2012). Political activism 2.0: comparing the role of social media in
Egypt’s “Facebook revolution” and Iran’s “Twitter uprising.” CyberOrient, 6(1).
Fischer, G., & Konomi, S. S. (2007). Innovative socio-technical environments in support of
distributed intelligence and lifelong learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
23(4), 338-350.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
Gaston, J. (2006). Reaching and teaching the digital natives. Library Hi Tech News, 23(3), 12-13.
Gaby, S., & Caren, N. (2012). Occupy online: How cute old men and Malcolm X recruited
400,000 US users to OWS on facebook. Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest,
11(3-4).
Graziano, T. (2012). The Tunisian diaspora: Between “digital riots” and web activism. Social
Science Information, 51(4), 534–550.
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 43
Hart, S. (2006). Breaking literacy boundaries through critical service learning: education for the
silenced and marginalized. Mentoring and Tutoring, 14(1), 17–32.
Hillrich, R. (1976). Towards an acceptable definition of literacy. English Journal, 65, 50-55.
Hoffman, M., & Jamal, A. (2012). The youth and the Arab spring: cohort differences and
similarities. Middle Eastern Law Governance, 4(1), 168-188.
Howard, P. N., & Duffy, A. (2011). What was the role of social media during the Arab spring?
Project on Information Technology and Political Islam, 1-30.
Innes, J., & Booher, D. (2010). Indicators for sustainable communities: a strategy building on
complexity theory and distributed intelligence. Planning Theory & Practice, 1(2),
173-186.
International Telecommunications Union. (2013). Measuring the information society. Geneva,
Switzerland. http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/publications/mis2013.aspx
Jocson, K. M. (2008). Steering legacies: pedagogy, literacy, and social justice in schools. The
Urban Review, 41(3), 269–285.
Joyce, M. (2010). Digital activism decoded: The new mechanics of change (p. 240).
International Debate Education Association.
Kahne, J. E. (2010). Promoting technological pathways to democratic citizenship: A longitudinal
study of media literacy education. Annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association.
Kaplan, M. & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities
of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-69.
Kerton, S. (2012). The Influence of the Arab uprisings on the emergence of occupy Tahrir, the
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 44
influence of the Arab uprisings on the emergence of occupy. Journal of Social, Cultural
and Political Protest, 11(3-4), 37–41.
Khondker, H. H. (2011). Role of the new media in the Arab Spring. Globalizations, 8(5), 675-
679.
Kolsaker, A. (2008). Inside the digital revolution: policing and changing communication with the
public. Information Communication Society, 11(7), 1032–1034.
Krapp, P. (2005). Terror and play, or what was hacktivism? Grey Room, 21(21), 70–93.
Lanham, R. (1995). Digital literacy. Scientific American, 273(3), 160-161.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2006). Digital literacy and digital literacies: policy, pedagogy and
research consideration for education. Digital Kompetanse, 1(1), 12-24.
Ladhani, N. (2011). Occupy Social Media. Social Policy, 41(4), 83.
Lin, P. (2010). Information literacy barriers: language use and social structure. Library HiTech,
28(4), 548–568.
Livingstone, S. (2008). Internet literacy: young people's negotiation of new online
opportunities. In: McPherson, Tara, (ed.) Digital youth, innovation, and the unexpected.
The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation series on digital media and
learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 101-121
McCafferty, D. (2011). Activism vs. slacktivism. Communications of the ACM, 54(12), 17.
McClure, C.R. (1994). Network literacy: a role for libraries. Information Technology and
Libraries, 13, 115–125.
Neumayer, C., & Raffl, C. (2008). Facebook for global protest: the potential and limits of
social software for grassroots activism Colombia: politics and insurgent groups in brief.
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 45
Voices, 1–14.
Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3),
1065–1078.
Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital
natives. New York: Basic Books.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. (R. K. Belew & M. D. Vose, Eds.)
On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. MCB UP Ltd.
Rosen, L. (2010). Rewired: Understanding the iGeneration and the way they learn. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Rotman, D., Vieweg, S., Yardi, S., Chi, E., Preece, J., Shneiderman, B, Pirolli, P., & Glaisyer, T.
(2011). From slacktivism to activism: participatory culture in the age of social media.
Paper presented at the annual CHI (Computer-Human Interaction) Conference in
Vancouver, Canada. Abstract retrieved from
http://yardi.people.si.umich.edu/pubs/Yardi_CHI11_SIG.pdf.
Sivitanides, M., & Marcos, S. (2011). The era of digital activism. Conference for Information
Systems Applied Research (pp. 1–8).
Solomon, G. (1993). Distributed cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Valenzuela, S. (2013). Unpacking the use of social media for protest behavior: the roles of
information, opinion expression, and activism. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(7),
920-942.
Vitak, J., Zube, P., Smock, A., Carr, C. T., Ellison, N., & Lampe, C. (2011). It's complicated:
Facebook users' political participation in the 2008 election. Cyberpsychology, Behavior
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 46
& Social Networking, 14(3), 107-114. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0226
Welch, A. R., & Freebody, P. (1993). Knowledge, culture and power: international perspectives
on literacy as policy and practice. Critical perspectives on literacy and education (pp. vi).
Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Youmans, W. L., & York, J. C. (2012), Social media and the activist toolkit: user agreements,
corporate interests, and the information infrastructure of modern social movements.
Journal of Communication, 62(20), 315-329.
Zápotočná, O. (2012). Literacy as a tool of civic education and resistance to power. Human
Affairs, 22(1), 17–30.
Zur, O. & Zur, A. (2011): On digital immigrants and digital natives: how the digital divide affects
families, educational institutions, and the workplace. Zur Institute – Online Publication.
Retrieved on July 30, 2013 from http://www.zurinstitute.com/digital_divide.html
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 47
Appendix A
Survey of Cyberactivist Habits
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 48
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 49
CYBERACTIVISM: A GENERATIONAL COMPARISON OF DIGITAL ACTIVISM 50